1. Sharing Power and Glory:
PACSCL’s Success with Survey and
Processing Grants
Holly Mengel
Project Manager
PACSCL/CLIR “Hidden Collections”
Processing Project

2. OR …
Sharing the Troubles and the Worries:
Consortial Support
during the
PACSCL/CLIR
“Hidden Collections” Project

3. “Hidden Collections”
Processing Project Mission
• Process and make accessible to researchers
approximately 200 currently “hidden collections”
in PACSCL repositories
• Provide a single access point for all of the
region’s research collections, and therefore,
present insight into the country’s political,
economic, social, religious and cultural
experiences, as well as Philadelphia’s role in
shaping America and its citizens

4. “Hidden Collections”
Processing Project
• Minimally process 114 collections (roughly 4,000
linear feet) in roughly 2 hours per linear foot
• Create EAD finding aids for 82 additional
collections (roughly 6,000 linear feet)
• Use the Archivists’ Toolkit and Describing
Archives: A Content Standard to create
“standardized” and compatible finding aids across
23 repositories in the Philadelphia Area

5. • Experiment with large scale minimal processing
for collections ranging from the 15th the 21st
centuries
• Develop new workflows for repositories who
need help with backlog
• Build consortial cooperation in order to reveal
Philadelphia’s papery treasures to researchers
across the country and the globe

6. The Standards Committee
• Composed of several archivists, librarians
and catalogers who gave their time to create
a group of standards that all project
participants accepted
• Met regularly to address questions as they
arose and to oversee my work in relation to
a cross repository acceptance

7. Q: What does minimal processing mean in a large
processing project with pre-20th century non/
institutional records?
• Much of this work was completed by
Matthew Lyons and Carey Majewicz of the
Historical Society of Pennsylvania
• Guidelines for minimal processing (available in
Processing Manual on-line) which include
dealing with folded material, paper clips,
rubber bands, mold, damaged items, volumes,
binders, etc.

8. Minimal Processing at 2 hours
per linear foot
• Main guidelines for minimally processing pre-20th
century materials
• Place loose items in archival folders, otherwise, do not re-
folder.
• In each folder:
• DO NOT organize the material
• DO NOT unfold papers
• DO NOT remove letters from envelopes
• DO NOT remove paper clips or metal fasteners, etc.
• Place all materials in archival boxes.
• Make notes of damaged materials and other concerns.

9. Q: How do we create standards that the project
AND 23 repositories can agree on and will result
in consistent finding aids?
• Require all repositories to install and use the
Archivists’ Toolkit throughout the project
(and hopefully in future)
• Use Describing Archives: A Content
Standard (DACS)
• Develop a standardized group of authorities
for all collections processed during the
project (AAT for genre forms; LOC for
other subjects)

10. Other Efforts for
Standardization
• Create a manual for the Archivists’ Toolkit
• Create a Processing Manual for student
processors
• Address issues such as writing effective folder
titles and notes

11. Put it into Action:
Process a Collection using the
Manuals
Anny Elston papers at Drexel University College of Medicine
Pre-Processing Post-Processing

12. Lesson Learned:
2 hours per
linear foot is
FAST!

13. Solutions:
• Develop a structure of providing information so that the
2 hours per linear foot allotted to the students could be
used for processing, not discovering what a collection
contains or is about …
• Create processing plans
• Use this newly discovered problem to determine what
parts of processing take the most time and then make
realistic recommendations for funding of future
processing projects.
• Create a processing worksheet to track what works and what
does not in a minimal processing world

14. Project Archivist,
Courtney Smerz
• In her first two weeks, we:
• Reviewed the processing manual and the
Archivists’ Toolkit manual
• Developed training manual and training
exercises
• Selected candidates for student processors
• Interviewed and hired student processors

15. In her third week …
• We trained our workers:
• Classroom instruction at the
University of Pennsylvania
• Hands on training with a
collection at Drexel
University College of
Medicine
Hands-on Processing at DUCOM

16. The Project Team
and our
Guinea Pig Repositories
Leslie O’Neill, Forrest
Wright, Eric Rosenzweig and
Laurie Rizzo:
Processors Extraordinaire
Drexel University,
Drexel University College
of Medicine
and
Haverford College:
Repositories of Much Faith

17. Initial Lessons Learned
• Each Repository has its own unique
concerns regarding the project and the
final product
• Technology is a many-headed beast
• Space is hard to come by
• 10% of staff time is not an easy request

18. October to December 2009
• 18 collections processed at:
• Drexel University
• Drexel University College of
Medicine
• Haverford College
• Wagner Free Institute of Science

19. Processing Lessons Learned
• #1: This project could not be accomplished
without the preceding PACSCL Survey
Project
• The research value rating allows for a
systematic and fair approach for prioritizing the
thousands of “hidden collections” in
Philadelphia for inclusion in this project
• The survey records are critical for the creation
of processing plans in a project with a limited
time frame.

20. • #2: More Product, Less Process Works!
• It is not just for 20th century institutional records
anymore
• It can effectively be used for collections of any age
and any type
• NOT ALL, HOWEVER, ARE GOOD CANDIDATES!
Good Not Good

21. • #3: Up-sides to Minimal Processing
• Awareness of the content of collection can
result in further processing initiatives of entire
collections or even just series
• Collections are available to researchers MUCH
more quickly than if processed traditionally
(generally 8 hours per linear foot)

22. • #4: Down-sides to Minimal Processing
• 2 hours per linear foot is entirely too fast (we
think 4 would be more realistic)
• If collections are shortchanged, it is generally in
terms of description—making certain that
researchers can find the collection is more than
half the battle
• It is not possible to create acceptable finding aids
at this speed without first developing the
processing plan, biographical/historical note, and
authorities

23. Our Community of Support
Grows
• Group of staff from repositories where project
processing has been completed meet to discuss
future of minimal processing in PACSCL and will
continue to meet and grow
• Plans to develop an Archivists’ Toolkit Support
Network for the Philadelphia area
• Plans to develop system for training the trainers
and processors

24. Consortial Work Gives Back:
To date (7 months into project), 38 collections from:
• The Academy of Natural
Sciences
• Bryn Mawr College
• College of Physicians of
Philadelphia
• Drexel University
• Drexel University College of Medicine
• Haverford College
• The Wagner Free Institute of Science
have been “unhidden” and are now available for
researchers

25. Creating an EAD Repository
• In a few months,
researchers and archivists
will have access to
PACSCL’s central EAD
repository allowing for
cross-repository
searching of finding aids

26. Implementing the Archivists’
Toolkit
• By the end of the project
(October 2011), the 23
participating repositories
will be using the Archivists’
Toolkit and will be able to
continually add to the Penn-
hosted EAD repository,
creating an ever-growing,
rich resource for world
wide researchers

27. Reducing Backlog through
Minimal Processing
• Tactics that can work for all repositories:
• Survey and create processing plans for
collections at time of accession
• Create brief notes and some arrangement
—anything is better than nothing
• Use Archivists’ Toolkit or another
database system to make the finding aid
or even collection level record available
to researchers
• Note preservation concerns, potential
restrictions, and highlights so that they
can be addressed sooner rather than later

28. Developing a Community of
Archivists and Users
The Wistars
are
EVERYWHERE!
Sarah Wistar Rhoads papers at
Bellefield Collection at Haverford College
Historical Society of Pennsylvania
George Hay Collection at Drexel
University College of Medicine

29. “Unhiding” Collections
http://clir.pacscl.org

30. Putting Theory into Practice:
How we have actually implemented our cross-repository
Minimal Processing Program
1. Processing Plans
2. Training Students
3. Supervising Students
4. Quality Control
5. Consortial Benefits
Courtney Smerz
Project Archivist
PACSCL Hidden Collections Processing Project

31. The Processing Plan
Essential to our success
• Enables Holly and I to plan ahead
• It serves as a starting point and guide to our
inexperienced student processors
• Makes it possible for our students to process a
collection in the 2 hours per linear foot
timeframe

32. The Processing Plan
• Gathers collection information in one place
• Identifies vital information about a collection:
• date span
• linear footage and number of containers
• Identifies obvious preservation concerns
• Lists supplies needed for processing,
• Approximate number of boxes and folders
• Suggested time frame needed for processing
• Proposes a list of series and/or an arrangement
scheme
• Includes preliminary biographical or historical
note
• We also add copies of relevant historical articles,
book chapters, etc., to help provide additional
historical context
• Includes list of authorized terms
• Identifies potential processing issues and offers
suggested solutions
• Example – ISM’s Mathis Collection

33. Our processing plans are simple word documents, designed to
guide any person with just a little archival know-how, in
processing a collection in accordance with current archival
standards for minimal processing and with little supervision.

34. Creating Processing Plans
• We rely heavily on the existing survey record
• BUT we do need to see the physical collection in order to
• Make confident recommendations for collection arrangement
• Determine housing/supply needs
• Determine whether or not we believe the collection can be processed to
our standards within our 2 hours-per-linear-foot time-frame.
• Time and effort required to complete processing plans varies greatly
• Researching and writing the historical note is very time consuming
• Identifying authorized terms is also time consuming

35. Training
We consider student training to be on-going and a
work in progress. However, we do have a required
formal training program for our project team.
• Minimal Processing Manual
• Archivist’s Toolkit Manual
• Archival “Boot Camp”
• Supervision and Quality Control

36. Minimal Processing Manual
Designed to be a general source of reference
The manuals have already evolved and will probably continue to be refined until the end of the project.
• 26 pages
• Explains archival basics
• Original order and provenance
• Series, subseries
• Finding aid
• Provides step by step instructions on how to arrange and describe a
collection in a minimal processing environment.
• specifies the “DOs” and “DON'Ts” of minimal processing.
• Suggests solutions for problematic situations.
• Also included is a glossary and copies of our processing worksheets

37. Archivist’s Toolkit Manual
• 7 page manual
• Simply step by step instructions for
entering collection level information, series,
sub-series, folders and box and folder
numbers into the database in a standardized
manner
• Instructions on how to edit the finding aid

38. Archival Boot Camp
• 3-day-long training workshop
• Required for all project staff
• 3 main components
• Lecture on archival theory, esp.
MPLP
• Introduction and training in AT
• Hands-on processing at
participating repository
* Supposed to result in a processed
collection

39. Boot Camp
• We have held two boot camps
• Each one has been a little different…
• Our next boot camp is May 18-20
• One day of “lecture”
• Two days of hands-on training at ISM
• Day 1 – Arrangement and re-housing
• Day 2 – Description and data entry
• We want this to be a team exercise with plenty of
time for questions and discussion

40. On-going training
and supervision
• We spent the first two weeks on site with our teams
• Once our teams started to work independently, it became
apparent that follow-up training was necessary
• We had one formal follow-up training
• Writing and formatting abstracts and scope and content
notes – take a more formulaic approach
• Constructing folder titles
• We amended our training manual and boot camp to
hopefully avoid this in the future

41. Quality Control
• Finding Aids are our primary tangible
product
• Rigorous editing for each finding aid
• Looking for clarity and readability, quality of
information, spelling and grammar, and general
errors
• Four editing cycles
• Peer review, Review by Courtney, Review by
Holly, Repository review

42. Benefits to the Consortium
• Processing Plan creation
• Can be incorporated into regular accessioning work flow
• Easy to do in Archivist’s Toolkit OR simple word document
• Theoretically you can create this document today and in five years
someone else can pick it up and know exactly what to do
• We DO recommend combining the survey and processing plan step
• Repository staff are welcome and encouraged to attend
boot camp
• Offered every semester
• Training in MPLP
• Training in the use of Archivist’s Toolkit
• Learn from the successes and failures of our student
processing program
• Adapt our program to fit institutional needs and maximize the potential of
student workers and interns.

43. “Unhiding” Collections
http://clir.pacscl.org